Gareth Morgan Consultancy Ltd

11/06/2026

Well, it now looks like we have the opportunity to finally outsource all parenting to big tech.
Give an iPad to your toddler to keep them quiet; a cuddly AI companion toy as a friend that they can talk to; a mobile phone so that they can communicate with the world whilst simultaneously becoming lonelier and more anxious, and now a piece of invasive, surveillance technology to read to them at night. That’s how to bring up your child, right? What could possibly go wrong? 🤦🏻‍♂️

Amazon wants to make bedtime less of a struggle.

10/06/2026

“Google's AI overviews work nothing like traditional search results, the court argues. The AI rewrites and judges results "in its own words and according to its own structure," the ruling says.”
👏😂

A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for false claims in its AI-generated search overviews. In this case, Google's AI had wrongly linked two publishers to scams and shady business practices. The court treated the AI overviews as Google's own content and rejected Google's argument that users were responsible for fact checking the results themselves. Previous case law shielding search engine operators from liability doesn't apply to AI overviews.

10/06/2026

Oh good grief. I never though that I'd be agreeing with a ex-Tory party schools minister, but here is a sample of what Lord Nash has just written in The Times about the proposed social media ban in the UK for under-16s. He is clearly outlining what I've been writing about, that a ban on its own is only part of the solution and it must go hand in hand with the companies being coerced into removing the addictive features inherent in these platforms that are causing serious harm to users.

"Sir Keir Starmer’s apparently imminent robust approach to protecting under-16s from harmful social media sites is to be applauded. But amidst the noise around this issue, a false choice is rearing its head. On the one hand we are told we should ban children from certain platforms; on the other we should pursue a ban on specific features of these platforms.
This is a false choice and it collapses the moment it is examined. The two options are not distinct; properly used, they do the same thing: creating the criteria to raise the age limit for harmful social media platforms, on the basis that their functionalities are not safe for children.
These functionalities are not mere side products — they are the very core of these platforms. What are these sites without algorithmic feeds, stranger-pairing, infinite scroll, autoplay and the alerts engineered to keep a child coming back? Strip them out and you are left with a very different product. Leave them be and you will have failed to protect children. The two are not rival approaches to choose between; one is simply the mechanism by which the other is delivered........
The government has given a binding commitment to introduce age or functionality based restrictions for under-16s. The test of how this is delivered is one of fact: can these platforms still sell their services, which are engineered to create addicts of children and which carry huge risk of catastrophic harm? If yes, the policy has failed, whatever we call it. If not, then it has succeeded and our children will be a lot safer."

The law must focus on blocking harmful platforms and features, with robust age verification to keep children out

09/06/2026

Yesterday I posted a blog post looking at the 6 month impact of Australian social media ban for under-16s. Coincidently, Keir Starmer also announced that the government is looking to implement a similar social media ban, alongside possible legislation to force companies such as Google and Apple to block children being able to take, share or view n**e images. Some big changes then that the UK government are proposing. So, it was of no surprise to read today, that the White House is telling the UK not to bring in the ban. If you had read my blog post, I make the point that in my opinion, the ban itself is only part of a solution. If what you really want to achieve is improving young people's mental health and well-being which is caused through the designed, addictive features within their products, something else has to be done other than just trying to stop under-16s gaining access. We know from evidence coming out of Australia that the ban is possibly not achieving what the government would want with the majority of under-16s saying that either the ban hasn't really affected them or that they can fairly easily circumvent any restriction through using a VPN. Some believe that the social media companies are not taking the 'reasonable steps' to remove and block under-16 accounts. In reality, why would they, when they know that losing potentially many millions of users, especially if the ban would spread to many other countries, would hurt them financially? Unless fines are enormous, many companies see fines as 'the cost of doing business' in countries. But, what would hurt these companies considerably, and hence the intervention by the White House, would be governments asking them to redesign their products to make them safe for users, forcing them to remove those addictive features, for instance. If they refuse to make the changes, then hit them with huge fines. The UK has the ability to fine tech companies up to 10% of their global turnover, which has yet to be used, but is there as a serious threat. I think this at the bottom of why social media companies ran off to the White House to complain that what countries are doing is unfair. Is it too much to ask that a company makes a product that is safe for all its users?? For example, we have toy, food, car safety standards to protect consumers, why don't we have it for digital platforms? By complaining, both big tech companies and the US government are really showing their true colours. It's clear that they believe in profits before safety and well-being of all users $$$$$ 🫤
If you want to read the blog post - https://www.headinthecloud.wales/2026/06/my-thoughts-on-australian-social-media.html

What are your thoughts about what the UK government is proposing? What would you like to see them do? What should we be doing in education?

08/06/2026

According to The Times, phone companies such as Apple and Google will be forced to introduce built-in features on smartphones and tablets that can detect and block n**e images for children. Tech companies have been given three months to introduce the provisions. If they fail to do so, the government will bring forward legislation to force them to activate the technology.

08/06/2026

I've just written a blog post on the impact of the first 6 months of the Australian social media ban for under-16s and my thoughts around what I would personally like to see happen next to the social media platforms.

My thoughts around the first six months of the Australian social media ban for under-16s and what more could be done.

08/06/2026

It had only taken about 15 years to address this but at long last it looks like something maybe getting done. It looks like the UK are following what has recently been put in place in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil. I’m currently writing something up about the Australian impact on the under-16s, 6 months into their social media ban, and also looking at what the EU is current considering around forcing platforms change the addictive nature of their products. I hope to post this soon.

Sir Keir Starmer is reportedly preparing to announce a social media ban for children under 16 after pressure from grieving parents led him to change his position.

04/06/2026

This is interesting article about a recent speech from the leader of America's second largest teachers union about AI and digital technologies in the classroom.

"Angry parents aren’t the only ones railing against the proliferation of AI in schools. The American Federation of Teachers, the second-largest teacher’s union in the United States, has now launched a major campaign calling on schools to keep AI and hardware like iPads out of elementary classrooms.

In a buzzy speech at the National Press Club on Wednesday, AFT president Randi Weingarten unveiled ten demands centered around reaffirming human-led instruction. One of the key requests: an immediate ban on AI systems in elementary school classrooms.

The AFT’s action points also included a screen ban for students in pre-kindergarten through second grade, as well as a prohibition on companion chatbots for students under 16, which schools have adopted at an alarming rate.

“If we don’t find a way to call this out from an education perspective, I fear that we will lose a generation of kids,” Weingarten told the New York Times in an interview. “The work of teaching and learning in the earliest grades should be done without AI.”"

Here in Wales, schools are currently waiting to see a draft of the updated Digital Competence Framework (DCF). Are we going to see reference to the explicit use of generative AI tools by learners in the primary school classroom? Are we going to see the introduction of critical AI literacy? What are your hopes or fears for the new DCF?

The second-largest teacher's union in the United States is calling for a sweeping ban on AI in elementary classrooms.

03/06/2026

As much as I‘ve always been a tech ‘geek’, I am proud to say that through my whole career I’ve also tried to question what it is we have been doing with EdTech - asking why are we doing this and what impact does the introduction of this technology have on our young learners or on teachers and schools? So, I very much agree with Jonathan Haidt’s call for all of us to be “techno skeptic”. Jonathan is the author of the fantastic book, ‘The Anxious Generation.’
Watch his latest TED talk where he proposes 3 principles of techno skepticism. What do you think - do you agree or disagree with what he says about social media, screens in the classroom and the impact of generative AI? 🧐

Humans aren't just social — we're ultrasocial, wired like bees and ants for deep connection. So what happens when smartphones take over childhood, tablets replace textbooks and AI companies infiltrate our kids’ lives? Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt lays out three principles of technoskeptici...

01/06/2026

“The creating is the fun part. The reason shortcuts to skip to the end aren’t always good is because the journey isn’t just how we acquire skills. The journey is the point of all of this.” Absolutely 👍